@MikePeterson why no comments on the H&M story? I am sure there is a good reason for it but it would be helpful if you could add an update explaining the situation.
There were, but people were being dicks, in contravention of the forum rules (handily posted at the bottom of every page) even after warnings.
So, we banned a few folks, and nuked the site from orbit. It rapidly became not cost effective to moderate.
Thanks. That's what I had assumed. Props to most AI readers who keep discussions civil (even if we often disagree).
You can't keep 230, and not allow for user bans. There's literally no way to do it.
Fine. Make everyone publish their content moderation rules AS WELL AS all content moderation decision making publicly.
Prove, in full view of sunlight that it's content moderation applied universally and not editorial control of content disguised as selective moderation.
Section 230 protections are a privilege and privileges should be earned and maintained, not granted cart blanche by fiat.
If it really is simple moderation and there isn't any bias or editorializing then this should be a very un-controversial position.
It's a controversial position because moderation takes time and money. Adding a manifesto after every post gets deleted, or user gets banned makes it even more of a problem, in a world where Google controls the vertical and horizontal and folks that don't work here think that they get a vote about what happened.
What you're asking for, would also require some modifications to the freedom of speech legal rulings over the last 30 years, as they pertain to businesses.
This is why, amongst other reasons, if nearly any of the proposed 230 "reforms" get made as written, these forums are closing.
I was going to post something similar. Rather than go to the expense and effort to explain every moderation decision I think the majority of sites would just do away with user comments altogether. I already spend a lot of time moderating and don't have the time nor inclination to invest more in it just to explain why and what to people who will disagree with it (sometimes loudly and irrationally), complain to anyone who will listen (and again very often angrily) and accuse the moderator of bias or worse for his/her reasoning anyway no matter what they do.
What's most telling is when members are invited to apply and volunteer their time to moderate so few are willing to do so, and even fewer have the stomach for it if they do.
If significant changes are made to 230 it will not result in what many here are expecting it will. IMHO there will be FEWER opportunities to voice your opinion, not more.
@MikePeterson why no comments on the H&M story? I am sure there is a good reason for it but it would be helpful if you could add an update explaining the situation.
There were, but people were being dicks, in contravention of the forum rules (handily posted at the bottom of every page) even after warnings.
So, we banned a few folks, and nuked the site from orbit. It rapidly became not cost effective to moderate.
One solution is to just remove the forums altogether. Many news sites have done so to squash the disinformation and conspiracy theories. Then you wouldn’t have to moderate those who come in and claim Tim Cook is a pedophile or that Apple uses slave labor. Those types can do that all they want on Facebook and Instagram and TikTok.
lkrupp said: There is no ‘judging’ what is true. Something is either true or not true based on fact. The assertion by the OP that the mRNA vaccines alter your DNA is patently false and that’s a fact. There is no opinion involved. These alternate truths are proposed by people who have no knowledge of how science and these vaccines work. They rely on conspiracy theories and confirmation bias. Anyone who remembers their high school or college biology classes would know what mRNA is and how it works. The vaccines use custom engineered mRNA to build special proteins. These proteins stimulate the immune system to create antibodies that attack the virus. They do not alter your DNA, they do not attach themselves to your DNA and change it. Scientific FACT!
Yes, true as far as I know, in that it doesn't directly alter your DNA, though I've seen a few theories about an after-effect which were over my head (as I'm no biology expert). But, I think you're correct in general that the info about it being DNA-altering floating around out there seems to be false. That said, the problem is the artificial and too nondescript nature of trying to control our immune system.
For example (analogy), lets say a robbery was committed in your neighborhood. The cops hold their morning briefing, and they say 'Well, the thief wears a hoodie, go out and arrest anyone wearing a hoodie.' Our immune system, just like the cops, are a bit more sophisticated then that. If our immune system actually learns what the bad virus is, it will take more into account than some proteins in the spike.
lkrupp said: ... The anti-vaxxers have long claimed that vaccines cause Autism. There are absolutely no scientific studies that link the two. Of course the anti-vaxxers claim it's a government conspiracy as that’s their only grip on the facts that dispute their claims. ...
I’m a skeptic, a doubting Thomas, a supporter of the scientific method. Show me the evidence, not alternate facts and truth.
And the biggest part of this is the total lack of education in our schools and the cultural dystopia of everyone getting to choose their own ‘truth’. Blathering idiocy.
Well, yes, there are some of those kind of anti-vaxxers out there, for sure. But, that's too often used as a straw man. Especially given the nature of what we're facing now, vaccine-hesitant is a better term... or maybe to borrow your language, a bit of a skeptic, a supporter of the scientific method and medical history. Most the 'anti-vaxxer' community is more concerned over the ingredients included in the vaccines, such as metals or preservatives. And, these mRNA gene therapies (a.k.a. vaccines) are a whole other ball of wax.
Yes, the education system is totally failing our culture, but more in the sense of teaching all kinds of wacky stuff instead of how to think.
I believe part of the problem has to do with the people hired to do the censoring. Their political biases determine the posts that are censored as well as those that aren’t. We need better quality control when it comes to determining what millions of Americans can and cannot read.
Agreed. They try to implement various crowd-driven methods, which the activists game. They implement 'AI' which totally sucks. Then a bunch of SJWs who work at the companies become the arbitrators to decide what to do with the ones they have to look at or get disputed.
But... there's actually an even bigger problem... brand-safe. A lot of the censoring is done to protect ad-money, so it isn't so much about political views or correct/incorrect, but about whatever the popular view is that is being crossed which one of the advertisers might not want to be associated with.
Mike Wuerthele said: This is why, amongst other reasons, if nearly any of the proposed 230 "reforms" get made as written, these forums are closing.
Yeah, I would think the social media giants might actually welcome some of the 'reforms' as they have huge legal teams that could possibly comply, while all their competition goes away.
I believe part of the problem has to do with the people hired to do the censoring. Their political biases determine the posts that are censored as well as those that aren’t. We need better quality control when it comes to determining what millions of Americans can and cannot read.
Agreed. They try to implement various crowd-driven methods, which the activists game. They implement 'AI' which totally sucks. Then a bunch of SJWs who work at the companies become the arbitrators to decide what to do with the ones they have to look at or get disputed.
But... there's actually an even bigger problem... brand-safe. A lot of the censoring is done to protect ad-money, so it isn't so much about political views or correct/incorrect, but about whatever the popular view is that is being crossed which one of the advertisers might not want to be associated with.
My personal answer would be that as a moderator for a couple of decades, and for at least five well-visited sites over that timespan including currently, I've NEVER moderated a post ( and there have been 10's of thousands I've seen, no joke) with any consideration for some company placing ads on the site, nor has any site owner or administrator advised me I should do so, or as far as I know has done so himself. That's FUD in my opinion, something made up without citation. At all.
Common sense: If that was actually a legit "thing" you'd never see the first complaint about Google.
gatorguy said: My personal answer would be that as a moderator for a couple of decades, and for at least five well-visited sites over that timespan including currently, I've NEVER moderated a post ( and there have been 10's of thousands I've seen, no joke) with any consideration for some company placing ads on the site, nor has any site owner or administrator advised me I should do so, or as far as I know has done so himself. That's FUD in my opinion, something made up without citation. At all.
Were you moderating for YouTube, Facebook, etc? Certainly, you're not arguing that journalism isn't impacted by who is advertising, right?
gatorguy said: My personal answer would be that as a moderator for a couple of decades, and for at least five well-visited sites over that timespan including currently, I've NEVER moderated a post ( and there have been 10's of thousands I've seen, no joke) with any consideration for some company placing ads on the site, nor has any site owner or administrator advised me I should do so, or as far as I know has done so himself. That's FUD in my opinion, something made up without citation. At all.
Were you moderating for YouTube, Facebook, etc? Certainly, you're not arguing that journalism isn't impacted by who is advertising, right?
Essentially EVERY site I frequent has been put in the position of doing paid sponsored (Thanks Mike, there is a distinction) reviews in order to pay the bills. Ad blocking IS a legit "thing". Have you ever seen a post considerately complaining about that product deleted or moderated? I haven't. As far as an individual company not wanting to be associated with a particular site's viewpoint do you believe modifying or removing Section 230 protection would change that?
gatorguy said: My personal answer would be that as a moderator for a couple of decades, and for at least five well-visited sites over that timespan including currently, I've NEVER moderated a post ( and there have been 10's of thousands I've seen, no joke) with any consideration for some company placing ads on the site, nor has any site owner or administrator advised me I should do so, or as far as I know has done so himself. That's FUD in my opinion, something made up without citation. At all.
Were you moderating for YouTube, Facebook, etc? Certainly, you're not arguing that journalism isn't impacted by who is advertising, right?
Essentially EVERY site I frequent has been put in the position of doing paid reviews in order to pay the bills. Ad blocking IS a legit "thing". Have you ever seen a post considerately complaining about that product deleted or moderated? I haven't. As far as an individual company not wanting to be associated with a particular site's viewpoint do you believe modifying or removing Section 230 protection would change that?
Fwiw, we don't do paid reviews.
If a post is a sponsored one, it's incredibly clearly labeled as such.
gatorguy said: My personal answer would be that as a moderator for a couple of decades, and for at least five well-visited sites over that timespan including currently, I've NEVER moderated a post ( and there have been 10's of thousands I've seen, no joke) with any consideration for some company placing ads on the site, nor has any site owner or administrator advised me I should do so, or as far as I know has done so himself. That's FUD in my opinion, something made up without citation. At all.
Were you moderating for YouTube, Facebook, etc? Certainly, you're not arguing that journalism isn't impacted by who is advertising, right?
Essentially EVERY site I frequent has been put in the position of doing paid reviews in order to pay the bills. Ad blocking IS a legit "thing". Have you ever seen a post considerately complaining about that product deleted or moderated? I haven't. As far as an individual company not wanting to be associated with a particular site's viewpoint do you believe modifying or removing Section 230 protection would change that?
Fwiw, we don't do paid reviews.
If a post is a sponsored one, it's incredibly clearly labeled as such.
gatorguy said: My personal answer would be that as a moderator for a couple of decades, and for at least five well-visited sites over that timespan including currently, I've NEVER moderated a post ( and there have been 10's of thousands I've seen, no joke) with any consideration for some company placing ads on the site, nor has any site owner or administrator advised me I should do so, or as far as I know has done so himself. That's FUD in my opinion, something made up without citation. At all.
Were you moderating for YouTube, Facebook, etc? Certainly, you're not arguing that journalism isn't impacted by who is advertising, right?
Essentially EVERY site I frequent has been put in the position of doing paid reviews in order to pay the bills. Ad blocking IS a legit "thing". Have you ever seen a post considerately complaining about that product deleted or moderated? I haven't. As far as an individual company not wanting to be associated with a particular site's viewpoint do you believe modifying or removing Section 230 protection would change that?
Fwiw, we don't do paid reviews.
If a post is a sponsored one, it's incredibly clearly labeled as such.
gatorguy said: Essentially EVERY site I frequent has been put in the position of doing paid sponsored (Thanks Mike, there is a distinction) reviews in order to pay the bills. Ad blocking IS a legit "thing".
Have you ever seen a post considerately complaining about that product deleted or moderated? I haven't. As far as an individual company not wanting to be associated with a particular site's viewpoint do you believe modifying or removing Section 230 protection would change that?
I think we're talking different levels. YouTube, Facebook, etc. are advertising platforms. They sell their audience to the advertisers... that's the whole point. They don't want to accidentally put one of their advertisers content on some material that might link that advertiser with content that runs afoul of what the SJWs deem appropriate.
Then there is the MSM. I remember a while back hearing one of the hosts making a clearly written statement kind of apology because they had let a guest say something on a previous show that obviously their big-pharma advertisers didn't like. If you think there is any chance you'll get the real scoop on anything pharma related on the MSM, think again.
Would removing Section 230 protection help? No, I'd have to think about it more, but I think it's kind of separate from that. As previously mentioned, I think mucking too much with Section 230 is a bad idea. I think there are better solutions to the problem, like competition (ex: Gab). If only they didn't have to go into hiding, develop alternate tech platforms, find ways of funding themselves because every payment processor and bank has canceled them, constantly fight slander, etc.
We've given a few platforms WAY too much power, and now we have to start pulling that back.
If a post is a sponsored one, it's incredibly clearly labeled as such.
Yeah, I mean that was the whole thing with Consumers Report. If such a thing weren't a problem, they'd have never gained any traction. (And, just for the record, I wasn't trying to make any kind of insinuation that AppleInsider is compromised in such a way.)
If a post is a sponsored one, it's incredibly clearly labeled as such.
Yeah, I mean that was the whole thing with Consumers Report. If such a thing weren't a problem, they'd have never gained any traction. (And, just for the record, I wasn't trying to make any kind of insinuation that AppleInsider is compromised in such a way.)
Comments
What's most telling is when members are invited to apply and volunteer their time to moderate so few are willing to do so, and even fewer have the stomach for it if they do.
If significant changes are made to 230 it will not result in what many here are expecting it will. IMHO there will be FEWER opportunities to voice your opinion, not more.
Unintended consequences....
For example (analogy), lets say a robbery was committed in your neighborhood. The cops hold their morning briefing, and they say 'Well, the thief wears a hoodie, go out and arrest anyone wearing a hoodie.' Our immune system, just like the cops, are a bit more sophisticated then that. If our immune system actually learns what the bad virus is, it will take more into account than some proteins in the spike.
Well, yes, there are some of those kind of anti-vaxxers out there, for sure. But, that's too often used as a straw man. Especially given the nature of what we're facing now, vaccine-hesitant is a better term... or maybe to borrow your language, a bit of a skeptic, a supporter of the scientific method and medical history. Most the 'anti-vaxxer' community is more concerned over the ingredients included in the vaccines, such as metals or preservatives. And, these mRNA gene therapies (a.k.a. vaccines) are a whole other ball of wax.
Yes, the education system is totally failing our culture, but more in the sense of teaching all kinds of wacky stuff instead of how to think.
Agreed. They try to implement various crowd-driven methods, which the activists game. They implement 'AI' which totally sucks. Then a bunch of SJWs who work at the companies become the arbitrators to decide what to do with the ones they have to look at or get disputed.
But... there's actually an even bigger problem... brand-safe. A lot of the censoring is done to protect ad-money, so it isn't so much about political views or correct/incorrect, but about whatever the popular view is that is being crossed which one of the advertisers might not want to be associated with.
Yeah, I would think the social media giants might actually welcome some of the 'reforms' as they have huge legal teams that could possibly comply, while all their competition goes away.
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148845/v1
Common sense: If that was actually a legit "thing" you'd never see the first complaint about Google.
Certainly, you're not arguing that journalism isn't impacted by who is advertising, right?
Have you ever seen a post considerately complaining about that product deleted or moderated? I haven't. As far as an individual company not wanting to be associated with a particular site's viewpoint do you believe modifying or removing Section 230 protection would change that?
If a post is a sponsored one, it's incredibly clearly labeled as such.
Then there is the MSM. I remember a while back hearing one of the hosts making a clearly written statement kind of apology because they had let a guest say something on a previous show that obviously their big-pharma advertisers didn't like. If you think there is any chance you'll get the real scoop on anything pharma related on the MSM, think again.
Would removing Section 230 protection help? No, I'd have to think about it more, but I think it's kind of separate from that. As previously mentioned, I think mucking too much with Section 230 is a bad idea. I think there are better solutions to the problem, like competition (ex: Gab). If only they didn't have to go into hiding, develop alternate tech platforms, find ways of funding themselves because every payment processor and bank has canceled them, constantly fight slander, etc.
We've given a few platforms WAY too much power, and now we have to start pulling that back.
Yeah, I mean that was the whole thing with Consumers Report. If such a thing weren't a problem, they'd have never gained any traction.
(And, just for the record, I wasn't trying to make any kind of insinuation that AppleInsider is compromised in such a way.)